Doubt and faith

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sunder,

 

Thank you for your kind posting #44745 (Mon Apr 27, Re: Sacred texts - 3.

Quoting & interpreting) in which you ask:

 

<< Would you kindly elaborate on the phrase '...inclined to skeptical

questioning..' (your message #44610 of Apr. 13) and its relation to 'saMshaya' &

'shraddhA' that Gita has emphasized? (eg saMshayAtmA vinashyati,

chhinnasaMshayaH, etc.) >>

 

Yes, I'm the type who does not like being told what to believe, on the basis of

any named or formed or qualified authority. I'm more inclined to question for

myself what's meant by any name, what's been made up from any forms, what has

been judged through any valued qualities.

 

Such questioning asks what is true in any names and forms and qualities that

have been instituted in the world outside. All outward institutions are thus

thrown into doubt, while the questioning proceeds.

 

Whatever is found doubtful must be questioned further, in search of clearer

truth. A price has to be paid, in doubting mind's beliefs that have been taken

habitually for granted.

 

This questioning must keep on asking further back, until some truth that can't

be doubted has at last been found. But is there such a truth? Is all this search

for it a useless exercise which can't achieve what is thus wrongly sought? At

what point should this kind of search be given up?

 

Continuing the search must necessarily imply an underlying faith in truth. And

all the doubting that's involved must serve as a continued way of deepening that

faith, until no doubt remains.

 

That faith must deepen to a true conviction in a self that truly knows, with

nothing doubtful in between what knows and what is known. That self must be

one's very own, found as one's own identity.

 

It must be found by asking one's way back to it -- beneath all doubtful sense of

'I', in which some mind believes.

 

This asking back, through knowing into truth of self, is aptly described in the

Gita passages that you so kindly suggested my examining. These passages are

appended below, followed by an attempt at word meanings and a rather free

interpretation.

 

Ananda

 

__________

 

saMshay'-AtmA (Doubting self)

=============================

 

4.37

----

yathai 'dhAMsi samiddho 'gnir bhasmasAt kurute 'rjuna .

j~nAnA-'gniH sarva-karmANi bhasmasAt kurute tathA ..

 

Word-meanings

-------------

yathai(as) 'dhAMsi(wood, fuel) samiddho(burning, blazing) 'gnir(fire)

bhasmasAt(reduced to ashes) kurute(makes) 'rjuna(Arjuna) .

j~nAnA(knowledge)-'gniH(fire) sarva(all)-karmANi(actions, works)

bhasmasAt(reduced to ashes) kurute(makes) tathA(thus) ..

 

Interpretation

--------------

Arjuna, in a blazing fire

fuel is reduced to ash.

 

So too, the fire of knowledge must

consume all changing acts of work.

 

What's left thereby is nothing more

than ash that's blown away in time.

 

4.38

----

na hi j~nAnena sadR^ishaM pavitram iha vidyate .

tat svayaM yoga-saMsiddhaH kAlenA 'tmani vindati ..

 

Word-meanings

-------------

na(not) hi(indeed) j~nAnena(by knowledge) sadR^ishaM(like) pavitram(purifying)

iha(here) vidyate(is found) .

tat(that) svayaM(oneself) yoga(union, unity)-saMsiddhaH(fully attained,

perfected) kAlenA(by time) 'tmani(in self) vindati(realises, finds) ..

 

Interpretation

--------------

Indeed, there's nothing else like knowledge

in its power to purify,

found here in this apparent world.

 

It is just that pure knowing which,

in course of time, finds unity

of one's own self -- attained in full,

in one's own truth of self alone.

 

4.39

----

shraddhAvAMl labhate j~nAnaM tat-paraH saMyate-'ndriyaH .

j~nAnaM labdhvA parAM shAntim acireNA 'dhigacchati ..

 

Word-meanings

-------------

shraddhAvAMl(someone ?f faith, true conviction) labhate(attains)

j~nAnaM(knowledge) tatparaH(intent, dedicated) saMyate(controlled)-'ndriyaH(one

whose faculties) .

j~nAnaM(knowledge) labdhvA(having attained) parAM(ultimate, highest)

shAntim(peace) acireNA(at once, soon) 'dhigacchati(goes) ..

 

Interpretation

--------------

Someone of faith attains to knowledge --

dedicated through conviction,

with all faculties controlled.

 

And having thus attained to knowledge,

such a one directly goes

to peace that is found ultimate,

with nothing further to attain.

 

4.40

----

aj~nash cA 'shraddadhAnash ca saMshayA-'tmA vinashyati .

nA 'yaM loko 'sti na paro na sukhaM saMshayA-'tmanaH ..

 

Word-meanings

-------------

aj~nash(someone not knowing) cA(and) 'shraddadhAnash(without faith) ca(and)

saMshayA(doubting)-'tmA(one whose self) vinashyati(gets destroyed).

nA(not) 'yaM(this) loko(world) 'sti(is) na(not) paro(beyond) na(not)

sukhaM(happiness) saMshayA-'tmanaH(in, of doubting self) ..

 

Interpretation

--------------

But someone who is ignorant,

who lacks conviction of true faith

and doubts that self which is one's own,

must by this lack become destroyed.

 

For such a one, with self in doubt,

this world cannot be rightly found.

Nor yet can anything beyond.

Nor any lasting happiness.

 

4.41

----

yoga-saMnyasta-karmANaM j~nAna-saMchinna-saMshayam .

AtmavantaM na karmANi nibadhnanti dhanaM-jaya ..

 

Word-meanings

-------------

yoga(union, unity)-saMnyasta(renounced)-karmANaM(one whose actions, works)

j~nAna(knowledge)-saMchinna(completely cut off)-saMshayam(one whose doubts) .

AtmavantaM(self-possessed, full of self) na(not) karmANi(actions)

nibadhnanti(bind) dhanaM-jaya(Arjuna) ..

 

Interpretation

--------------

Through yoga, actions are renounced

in harness back to unity.

By knowledge, doubts are all cut off.

 

No actions bind one who by yogic

harnessing or by discernment

has come to that unity

which is completely self-possessed.

 

4.42

----

tasmAd aj~nAna-saMbhUtaM hR^it-sthaM j~nAnA-'sinA 'tmanaH .

chittvai 'naM saMshayaM yogam AtiShTho 'ttiShTha bhArata ..

 

Word-meanings

-------------

tasmAd(therefore) aj~nAna(ignorance)-saMbhUtaM(made up of)

hR^it(heart)-sthaM(standing, residing)j~nAnA(knowledge)-'sinA(sword)'tmanaH(of

the self) .

chittvai(cutting) 'naM(this) saMshayaM(doubt) yogam(union, unity) AtiShTho(take

your stand) 'ttiShTha(arise) bhArata(Arjuna) ..

 

Interpretation

--------------

This doubt about your own true self

is made of mixed-up ignorance,

thought wrongly to reside in heart.

 

Thus, with the sword of proper knowing,

cut this doubt completely off;

and thereby take your rightful stand

in your own inmost unity.

 

From there alone, you must arise!

 

 

chinna-saMshaya (Doubts cut off)

================================

 

18.10

-----

na dveShTy akushalaM karma kushale nA 'nuShajjate .

tyAgI sattva-samAviShTo medhAvI chinna-saMshayaH ..

 

Word-meanings

-------------

na(not) dveShTy(dislikes) akushalaM(disagreeable) karma(action) kushale(to one

agreeable) nA(not) 'nuShajjate(attached) .

tyAgI(renouncer) sattva(goodness)-samAviShTo(suffused) medhAvI(wise,

understanding steadily) chinna(cut off)-saMshayaH(one whose doubts) ..

 

Interpretation

--------------

 

One who renounces truly is

not put off by unpleasant acts,

nor found attached to pleasant acts.

 

A true renouncer must be one

whose troubled doubts have been cut off

by understanding steadily,

suffused by goodness from within.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote:

>

>

>

> Yes, I'm the type who does not like being told what to believe, on the basis

of any named or formed or qualified authority. I'm more inclined to question for

myself what's meant by any name, what's been made up from any forms, what has

been judged through any valued qualities.

>

> Such questioning asks what is true in any names and forms and qualities that

have been instituted in the world outside. All outward institutions are thus

thrown into doubt, while the questioning proceeds.

>

>

 

Namaste Ananda-ji,

 

Thank you very much for your clarification. I am still wondering if the

'skeptical questioning' is akin to or different than what Arjuna is expressing

in 6:39 -

 

etanme sa.nshayaM kR^iShNa chhettumarhasyasheShataH .

tvadanyaH sa.nshayasyaasya chhettaa na hyupapadyate .. 6\-39..

 

39. O Krsna, You should totally eradicate this doubt of mine.

For, none other than Yourself can be the dispeller of this doubt!

 

In other words, would you not trust your Guru's words first, and then

only seek to clear the doubts?

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sunder,

 

In your message #44786 of Sat May 2, you ask:

 

<< ... would you not trust your Guru's words first, and then only seek to clear

the doubts? >>

 

Yes I would, or at least I should. But this is a faith that has come about by

doubting: with the doubts having been taken to my teacher, who settled them for

me.

 

Since then, over the years, this faith has been deepened by repeatedly

investigating doubts that continue to arise, in a variety of contexts and

situations.

 

The investigation makes use of reasoned questioning. But it is unquestionably

based upon a paradoxical faith in my teacher, as that one sole expression

(upadhi) who personally represents an impersonal truth which has thereby been

shown.

 

As I see it, this paradoxical faith is described in Shri Shankara's

Tattvopadesha, 87:

 

<< jIvo nA 'ham deshiko 'ktyA shivo 'ham >>

 

[so too, by what my teacher says,

I am no seeming person here.

I am just consciousness alone –

found absolute, all by itself.]

 

Such a paradoxical faith must be utterly beyond all formulated reason. It is my

personal faith in the impersonal, a faith that must not be imposed on any other

person. It would be very wrong of me to insist or even to expect that someone

else should believe what my teacher has said.

 

I would say that something of the same is true for cultural faith as well. Yes,

a cultural community may share a degree of faith in texts and institutions that

have come to be accepted as a matter of common convention.

 

Accordingly, it can be useful to illustrate a point by quoting from a

conventionally accepted text as maintained and interpreted in some culturally

established institution. Such a quotation can help to locate the point in a

shared cultural context.

 

But I think that it's quite wrong to try forcing a proof or a disproof on the

basis of such cultural quotation. Where truth is taken seriously, it must lie

ultimately far beyond all personal and cultural convention.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote:

>

>

> I would say that something of the same is true for cultural faith as well.

Yes, a cultural community may share a degree of faith in texts and institutions

that have come to be accepted as a matter of common convention.

>

> Accordingly, it can be useful to illustrate a point by quoting from a

conventionally accepted text as maintained and interpreted in some culturally

established institution. Such a quotation can help to locate the point in a

shared cultural context.

>

 

Namaste Anandaji,

 

I have no disagreement with the viewpoints here. I am still unsure as to

how and when to categorize a quotation as correct only in a " cultural context " .

An example or two would be helpful.

 

I like to think that like physical laws, 'spiritual' laws

exist which are universal, and 'shAstras' expound.

 

For example:

 

Law of advaita

 

Law of karma (action) - yaj~na (sacrifice), dAna (charity), tapas (austerity)

 

Law of karma-phala - " aniShTa, iStha, mishra " )

 

Law of triguNas

 

Law of Dharma

 

Law of puruSharthas

 

Law of parama puruShArtha (or mokSha - liberation, etc.)

 

Would these be regarded as 'impersonal' or 'culturally' determined? If

the latter, then Gita would have little universal appeal.

 

Would much appreciate your thoughts.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sunder,

 

Thank you for your message #44815 (Mon May 4) asking for more clarity on 'how

and when to categorize a quotation as correct only in a " cultural context " .'

 

I'd say first of all that there's no mechanical or formal way of determining the

correctness of a quotation. The right choice and interpretation of quotations

must depend upon an essentially living and informal intelligence which has been

educated reflectively, in some cultural context. What's needed is an educated

sensitivity to the cultural contexts of both speaker and listener.

 

Yes of course there must be common or universal principles which are differently

expounded in particular, by different persons and different cultures. Without

such common principles, there could be no communication across personal and

cultural differences.

 

But, as we describe such principles and their relation into laws, the

descriptions are formulated personally and culturally, in many different ways.

So there always needs to be an informal reflection back from any particular

forms, to an informal depth of knowing that is shared beneath the differences.

 

That inner depth is the basis of all education, in any context. To 'educate'

means to 'lead out' (from Latin 'ex-' meaning 'out' and 'ducare' meaning 'to

lead' -- 'ducare' being related to 'duke' meaning a 'leader').

 

Education is thus essentially concerned with a leading out of common principles

from an inner depth of knowing that is ultimately the same in each of us.

 

Of course as you point out, it can help to point out particular examples in

their specific cultural environments. And you suggest the following examples

from the Advaita tradition and the Bhagavad-gita.

 

1. Law of advaita

 

2. Law of karma (action) - yaj~na (sacrifice), dAna (charity), tapas (austerity)

 

3. Law of karma-phala - " aniShTa, iStha, mishra " )

 

4. Law of triguNas

 

5. Law of Dharma

 

6. Law of puruSharthas

 

7. Law of parama puruShArtha (or mokSha - liberation, etc.)

 

Of course I can't even begin to discuss all these in a single posting. But I

will think about them at more leisure and try to get back on some of these in

some future postings.

 

I wouldn't myself describe all these as 'laws'. For example, I'd think of

'advaita' as a principle rather than a law. And I'd think of the 'tri-gunas' and

the purusharthas' as divisions of aspects.

 

About whether these may be regarded as 'impersonal' or 'culturally' determined,

I'd say that they could perhaps be regarded as relatively impersonal. They may

be relatively shared in common by some differing cultures. All of them except

for the principle of advaita, which alone is absolutely impersonal.

 

I'd say that all relative impersonality (or universality) comes from that one

principle which is so deeply subjective that all seeming objects are found

utterly dissolved in it.

 

Ananda